Development Review Board
                                                     Town of Stowe
                                                     August 2, 2005

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, August 2, 2005 in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chris Walton, Bruce Morton, Larry Jones, Susan Jary and Ed Izzo. Absent: Francis Aumand.

Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute book.

Halvorsen Lighting Plan:  Darrow Mansfield of Mansfield Ventures, Ltd. was present on behalf of the applicant.  He stated the decision of June 24, 2005 included a condition that the applicant return to the Board with an improved outdoor lighting plan. After a detailed description of the proposed lights and their number, location and wattage Mr. Walton moved to ACCEPT the plans as presented in satisfaction of condition # 2 of the 6/24/05 approval, seconded by Mr. Jones with Coppock, Jones, Walton, Morton and Jary voting in favor. Mr. Izzo excused himself from the vote as he had recused himself from the original hearing. Mr. Aumand was not present.

                                     Conditional Use and Subdivision Hearings:

Application #:         S-04-45
Property Owner:     Moscow Group, Inc
Overview:               Final subdivision application for a 17 lot residential subdivision
Tax Parcel #:           03-064.000
Physical Location:  Adams Mill Road
Zoning District:       Moscow Commercial
Present for the hearing were: Darrow Mansfield, Charles & John Grenier, Steve Riley and Cleve Patterson. Seeking Final Plat Approval. Sec. 4.2 has been addressed, stated Mr. Mansfield. Plans are for 17 parcels of which 15 will be used for residential use, and 2 to be used as common open space (owned by the Owner’s Association). Each lot will conform to the minimum of the district, stated Mr. Mansfield. Act 250 has asked for 100’ of undisturbed buffer along the riverbank for most of the lots, 50’ of which will need to be replanted. Mr. Mansfield distributed drafts of the project covenants and bylaws. State wastewater permits have been issued. 3 test wells have been drilled, all of which had adequate flow. Each lot will have its own well. Mr. Mansfield described the building zones for Lot #11 (which has a slight angle in order to leave 100’ at the top of the bank and Lot #12 has been changed slightly. On Lot #5, the building zone has been slid to the west to allow for the 100’ buffer. Charles Grenier stated the District 5 Commission waived the 100’ buffer requirement for Lots 5 and 12. Mr. Riley stated the driveway to Lot #2 has been narrowed. A new street is being created but a name has not been determined. Sheet # 1, Adams Mill Residential Site Plan site plan dated 5/16/05 entered into the record. A full report of land and soil conditions and copy of the sewage disposal plan has been submitted to the state, stated Mr. Mansfield. Charles Grenier presented the plan for the driveway for Lot #1 (this was condition #1 of the preliminary layout approval). They are using the existing old road and widened the bend in the road. There is a steep section at the bottom of the road at 8% for about 150’ and then another of 14-15% for approximately 150’. Mr. Grenier did not feel it would present a problem for access. Mr. Coppock asked if this driveway serves only Lot #1. Mr. Mansfield stated it also serves a previously approved lot of 2 acres. 350’ of it will be a shared driveway to Lots # 1 & 2. Mr. Mansfield stated the Fire Department has received the plan and Mr. Brink stated he has the Municipal Impact Sheet and it appears to be initialed by Wendall Mansfield, Fire Dept. There was discussion about the Fire Dept’s guidelines regarding turnouts.  Mr. Grenier stated the guidelines will be met. Mr. Jones asked if the 20 acre lot will be sold as being able to be further subdivided and Mr. Riley said no, but the buyer could build more than one house. Mr. Jones said if there were to be more than three dwellings using that driveway then it would become a street for zoning purposes, and the appropriate setbacks would have to be met. (Mr. Coppock agreed)  Mr. Riley read a letter from the Fire Dept and the Board agreed that the Fire Department has not signed off on this proposal in terms of their guidelines. Mr. Patterson stated it was approved as a single lot and is basically undevelopable land beyond the house site. Mr. Coppock stated it becomes an issue when more than 3 dwellings are constructed. Mr. Patterson asked what would happen if a camp were to be constructed and Mr. Coppock read the definition of a dwelling unit. After more discussion it was the applicant’s testimony that it is a single lot and any change would have to return to the Board. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-04-45 under the standard Subdivision Regs with the following CONDITIONS:
             (1) Any change in the proposed plan or use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
             (2) The Stowe Fire Department guidelines for roads and driveways need to be satisfied with the exception of standards for maximum grade.       
             (3) The name of the “side road” needs to be shown on the plan.
             (4) All the conditions imposed as part of the preliminary layout approval shall remain in force unless modified by this decision.

Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Jary, Jones, Walton, Morton, Coppock and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Aumand was not present.
Mr. Brink read the Preliminary conditions tape 1 side 2 and it was agreed the road condition is still outstanding.  Mr. Walton moved to AMEND Condition of S-04-45 to allow the required plans to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Izzo seconded with ALL in favor. Mr. Aumand was not present.

Application #         S-05-19
Property Owner:    Gutstein, Denise
Overview:              Proposal is for a 2-lot subdivision
Tax Parcel #:          10-128.010
Physical Location: 1001 Weeks Hill Road
Zoning District:      RR-3
Present were Ms Gutstein and Charles Grenier.
Ms. Gutstein explained the proposal as being a total of 9.66 acres, Lot 1 of 3 acres and contains a dwelling/ apartment (exists with maximum of 3 bedrooms); Lot 2 of 6.6 acres contains a house which was constructed in the past year. Mr. Grenier stated there will the existing r.o.w which is 30’ wide. There are no plans for a future subdivision of Lot 2.  Pond has to satisfy setbacks so need to alter the site plan. Water, sewer and power exist. (State Subdivision Permit submitted)  Easements will be established for each lot, including the common drive which will be shared for 300’. Mr. Coppock asked that an document be submitted stating the shared maintenance agreement between the 2 lots as well as anything else which will be shared, i.e water, electrical service etc. Ms. Gutstein said she had contacted an Attorney and one will be provided. Sec. 5 reviewed. Mr. Brink described the dimensions of Lot #1 lot which complies with the required dimensions. Lot # 2, Mr. Jones questioned the 3 +/- and Mr. Grenier stated they will make it comply to the 3 acres. The only setback issue presented is the one on the westerly end of the pond which will be satisfied by doing some fill. Electric is a non-issue as presently as being metered separately. Mr. Morton moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-19 with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change in the proposed plans or use of the property shall be brought to the Zoning Administrator’s attention, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. 
(2) The standard Subdivision Condition shall remain in force.
(3)  A copy of the agreement stating evidencing how all agreements of maintenance/shared utilities, road etc will be implemented between the two properties. All easements shall be submitted which will allow the residents of one lot to enter on another lot for such maintenance.  
(4) The site plan shall indicate clearly that each lot be no less than 3 acres in size.
(5) Mr. Walton seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Morton, Izzo, Coppock and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Aumand not present to vote.

Application #:        S-05-20
Property Owner:    Page Stowe Trust, c/o Mark Page
Overview:              Create a 2-lot subdivision of a 54 acre parcel with Lot 1 of 11+ acres with existing residence and Lot 2 of 43 acres.
Tax Parcel #:          11-048.000
Physical Location: 3452 Weeks Hill Road

Present were Charles Grenier and Mark, Walter and Laura Page with Mark Page being sworn in. Mr. Grenier state the total parcel is 54 acres. Plans are to sell 43 acres to allow for one residence (and possibly a guest house). There are 11 acres to be kept with the existing house.  The parcels are accessed by Carey Farm Road .State Subdivision Permits have been received for both lots. Mr. Grenier explained the view shed and building zone (2 acres) on the 43 acre parcel. There is a very small view of the Octagon and the Nose over the knoll off Robinson Springs. Not in the RHOD, stated Mr. Grenier. All heavily wooded and whoever develops the parcel will have individual requests. Clearing zones are shown on Lot #1 and the existing house is also going to reserve the right to clear a limited area on Lot #2. Lot #2 will not be allowed to clear within 100’ of the Lot #1 property line.
Ms. Jary noted that Lot # 2 is for single family dwelling on the site plan. Mr. Grenier stated that will be modified to allow for a caretakers house. Sec. 5 of the Regulations reviewed. There are no scenic features on either lot. The setbacks are shown from the old town road and from the Franks property. It is 1100’ to the building zone off Weeks Hill Road. No reserved strips required. Traffic a non-issue. Pedestrian access not required. Mr. Grenier stated there is a standard letter from the Stowe Electric Dept granting the 1 year approval for service. Mr. Grenier stated they will go with what is submitted. Any approval will allow for the construction of the roads etc. but nothing that has to be hooked up to the electric service.  Mr. Jones stated the RR-5 area is a minimum of 300’ width. Mr. Grenier stated it measures 350’. Mr. Grenier agreed to submit a copy of the clearing zone language.   
(1) Copy of the deed re: the language to the Carey Farm Road as being a legal access (a private road).
(2) A revised plan showing the removal of the old property line and the dotted line on Lot 2. be submitted.
(3) A layout of the clearing zone that is being retained on Lot 2 to get to Lot 1 with a copy of the language.
(4) A revised overall plan be submitted
(5) The approval will contain the standard language of the Board in reference to the Stowe Electric Dept. letter until such time there is an up to date letter from Stowe Electric. 
(6) 
Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-20 with the above stated CONDITIONS. Mr. Jones seconded with Mr. Izzo, Walton, Jones, Morton, Coppock and Ms. Jary. Mr. Aumand was not present.

Application #:         7A-110.07
Property Owner:    Clover Investments
Overview:              Seeking to renew permit satisfying condition # 4 of the DRB decision. Seeking to expand the former Homebake kitchen and other alterations as well as the hours of operation.     
Tax Parcel #:           7A-110.000
Physical Location:  Baggy Knees Shopping Center
Zoning District:      VC-30
David Wykoff present. 3 units were combined and approved last year. The noise level was a concern when approved on a 6 months trail period, applicant returned requesting live and amplified music. Now seeking to approve the extension of the hours. Current hours are: 2:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. Tuesday thru Saturday and Sunday and Monday 2:00 P.M. to 12 midnight. The request is to open 2 ½ hours earlier for lunch from 2:00 P.M. to 11:30 A.M. for lunch tape 2 side 1 Closing hours to remain the same as they presently are. Also presented plans to expand the kitchen to allow for an 8’ grill and hood  with no increase in seating of 60. Mr. Wykoff requested allowing for amplification for no more than 3 players with none after 12:00 midnight. Plans are to remove one bathroom, if required to allow for the hood, leaving two bathrooms. Mr. Coppock stated labor & Industry determines this. Discussion took place re: the venting in the kitchen. Mr. Izzo asked what protrude from the rear of the building and Mr. Wykoff testified nothing.    
Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7A-110.00 to AMEND the application to include extend hours of operation, alter the kitchen, to allow for the amplification of music for no more than 3 players, and possible eliminate one bathroom. The testimony is there is no additional seating as part of the application. 
(1) Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(2) A modified application shall be submitted for the record to the Zoning Administrator.
(3) The conditions imposed in previous decisions shall remain in force.
(4) Approval is granted based on the seating allowed remain at 60 seats.
 
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Morton, Izzo, Coppock, Jones and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Aumand not present.

RECESS

Application #:         S-05-21
Property Owner:     Shea, Gertrude (Powder’s Edge)
Overview:  9-lot residential development of 26.44 acres into 8 home  lots and 1 open space lot.
Tax Parcel #:           7-237.000
Physical Location:  Access is on the east side of Sylvan Park Road
Zoning District:       RR-1; RR-2 and RR-5

Present were John Petrowski from Trudell Consulting; Dean Romano, applicant as well as Charles Burnham. Proposing a PRD with 8 proposed single family house lots and 1 open space lot. Located at the top of Sylvan Park Road. Site is entirely wooded and prosing a single dead end road to town standards. Proposing double setbacks for most of the project sites and restricted building envelopes to minimizing tree clearing stated Mr. Petrowski allowing most of the sites to remain in its natural state. Site is not very visible from off the property. Will be proposing to connect to Town sewer and connect to Fire District #3 for water and which there is a reservoir existing. Infrastructure is partially in place, i.e sewer line. There are no class 2 wetlands on the property and wetlands to mostly be avoided are class 3. Slopes for the proposed road range from 2-8% with nothing over 8%, stated Mr. Petrowski. Mr. Burnham stated the project is not in the RHOD. Smallest lot to be 1 acre and largest which will be Lot 8 is 6.11 acres and open space lot to be around 10 acres. Traffic explained by Mr. Petrowski explaining that 77 trips per days are expected. The old road will not be use for the public to use. Access to the reservoir is from Stowe Hollow Road. Power and telephone will be underground and no street lights are planned other than a safety light. Mr. Burnham stated the road will be maintained by the Homeowners Association but at some time could be taken over by the Town (therefore being built to town specs). Have not received a letter as yet from Stowe Electric Department. Ms. Jary asked about the language of the lot dimensions. Mr. Burnham explained the density and setbacks. Actual exterior setbacks are used for the district but internal lot setbacks are referred to in the PRD section. Mr. Pitrowski stated most of the building envelopes are reduced beyond the setbacks with Mr. Burnham stating exterior setbacks on the lots are double for the required setbacks for the zone. There will be a final plat and survey plat showing the zones and setbacks. Mr. Coppock stated there is no PRD application as a conditional use under Sec. 17 of the Regs. Mr. Coppock explained the PRD approvals. Mr. Burnham states he has never had to do this before and did not see PRD’s-says the Board may approve them in any district. The use is allowed in the district, and this is the way I have done it for many years, stated Mr. Burnham. Discussion between Mr. Burnham and Mr. Coppock .Mr. Burnham requested the Board review under the subdivision regs and then go to the Board. Mr. Coppock responded that is the reverse, if it were to be reviewed under subdivision regs without having first decided that it is a pRD it couldn’t be done since the size of the lots do not conform. Need to first grant PRD approval. Mr. Coppock suggested going through the PRD standards, proceed and find (if it is grantable) then go through the subdivision section. It is possible a Conditional Use approval is not required, stated Mr. Coppock.
Sec. 17.2 reviewed and  Mr. Burnham explained the density  (copies were submitted). RR-1 district =3.4 acres; RR-2=14.7 acres; RR-5 district= 8.3 acres. RR 1 has density of 3.4; RR 2 has density of 7.35 and RR 5 1.66=12.4 single family units. No timesharing proposed, stated Mr Pitrowski. 17.3 (1) standards for development: double setbacks in all districts. (2) distance between   ????   shall not be less than 50’. A letter has been approved for the water but not received a letter from Mr. Johnson re: sewer allocation. 17.4 does not apply. 17.5: Project has a 30% open space (owned by the Homeowners Assoc. )with tree clearing restrictions. This will be on the plat and in the covenants. No building construction within the open space, stated Mr. Pitrowski. Mr. Coppock asked if the board would be inclined to grant PRD approval with what has been submitted. Answer was yes. This will require a zoning application to the DRB for PRD approval.
This could be tied in with the Final Plat application review. Sec. 5.1 Subdivision  Review:   tape 2 side 2  A narrative submitted. Mr. Pitroski explained saying the site entirely wooded, adjacent to single family homes so in keeping with the area. Minimize the tree clearing, no historic resources, wetland are on the open space land and being avoided. Not proposing any landscaping or screening as most of the site is wooded.Mr. Burnham stated the property is sandwiched in among  Sylvan Park and Moody developments and cannot seen from Cady Hill. Mr. Pitrowski stated there will be no clearing within the double setbacks. Mr. Coppock referred to Lot #4 re: clearing. It has been previously cleared somewhat by a former owner and more than any other lot. Need to be able to manage the woods, stated Mr. Burnham and the building envelopes have not been decided. This will be provided. Upper lots to be the small building lots. No proposed reserved strips or pedestrian access. Traffic: discussion around the trip narrative. Mr. Pitrowski stated there are no class I or II wetlands.  Mr. Morton stated he is less troubled about the increase in traffic in this area of town than on Rte 108. The traffic will be much less than the Affordable Housing project, stated Mr. Coppock, which was a much more dense development. Need approval from the Electric Dept, water and sewer. Mr. Pitrowski stated they will be going to the Fire Department re: the project. Lot configuration granted mute in the granting of a PRD. 25’ minimum side yard setback within the project being proposed.  Pond for fire protection proposed and waiting to combine the location with the stormwater run-off plan and will have a dry hydrant.
Waiting for the State Discharge Permit. Mr. Pitrowski stated there are no subsequent development plans that he is aware of although Lot 8 has the ability to subdivide. Mr. Copock suggested if this were to take place, one would have to return to the Board and amend the approval which could be a potential difficulty because as a PRD is the lack of flexibility once the PRD is created and granted. Mr. Burnham stated there is a possibility to further subdivide and will outline in the covenants. Mr. Coppock stated testimony is the project will be close to invisible off site, even with the proposed clearing as shown on SP 1. Owned in common will be the roadway, storm water  fire pond etc. but probably no design control. Open Space: Mr. Pitrowski stated the narrative should read 9.76 acres and a plan should be submitted showing the location of the class wetlands and the type. Sec. 5.3: Open space and Cluster: Open space areas are designated with no structures erected on the designated space, other than stormwater. Road will conform to town standards (A-21). Not proposing the wider shoulders but there is a 24’ wide traveled lane. Length of road is 1800.’ Mr. Pitrowski said he will discuss with the Town Public Works Director.
There are requirements by the Fire Dept. to have along the roadway pull-outs. There is presently a street light in the roadway now, but there possibility exists that there may be another proposed in some area. Stormwater to be addressed- have a wet pond with a swale shown to go over to the pond and then discharge it. There is a house downhill of the development which Mr. Pitrowski is addressing the stormwater issue and will be intercepting the drainage area. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law in re: S-05-21 Preliminary Approval with the following CONDITIONS:
  (1) Ability to serve letters from Stowe Electric, sewer and water
  (2) More specific clearing plans shown on site plan
  (3) Fire Department review
  (4) Copy of the covenants
(6) Density calculations, more specific delineation of the wetlands and pullouts shown for the road.
(7) Copy of stormwater management plan; permit/discharge
(8) Conditional Use application
(9) Reveal any subsequent development plans if available.
(10) Submit to the Zoning Administrator with the corrected copy of the narrative.
(11) Any lighting if being proposed.
(12) 
(13) Mr. Walton seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Morton, Izzo, Coppock, Walton and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Aumand not present. 
               
Morrison/ Beck application: letter dated 7/22/05 requesting a postponement to September 20th. As this has been postponed once before, Mr. Copopck suggested if they are not ready for 9-20th they need to withdraw. Mr. Walton moved to RECESS to 9-20-05, seconded by Mr. Jones with all in favor.

Cumming Subdivision re: Condition # 4 :  Approval letter from the Fire Department related to the subdivision. This letter read by Mr. Coppock. Mr. Coppock suggested another letter stating exactly what the Fire Department is requiring. Cummings proposed house: Noted the application withdrawn.

Bestowed- Stowe Education Fund:  Mr. Brink described the landscaping plan. There was a parking plan was submitted by Mr. Mansfield through a memo with a net gain of 7 spaces. Mr. Brink will ask Mr. Mansfield for additional information, in particular the  size of the spaces.     

Verizon conditions: Will not cut down the trees around the pole (cond. # 2) and # 3, the Kreizels will submit a letter for the record. Performance bond and maintenance letter and revised landscaping plan submitted. Will approve at the next meeting.

There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at  8:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire

In the absence of Barbara Allaire, Linda Adams took the minutes. These have been transcribed by Barbara Allaire with the help of the tapes and notes from Ms. Adams.

Development Review Board
                                                    Town of Stowe
                                                   August 16, 2005

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, August 16, 2005 in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present:  Chris Walton, Vice Chair, Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Francis Aumand and Susan Jury.  Absent: Allan Coppock. Bruce Morton has resigned from the Board. C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator was also absent and Linda Adams, Assistant attended the meeting. 

Other Business: 
Chaumont re: Conditions # 2 & 3: Board had asked for a revised exterior lighting plan location of the lights around the tennis court, the brick lights etc. After discussion, it was agreed it was difficult to read the plan and agreed to POSTPONE until the next meeting when Mr. Coppock will be present. Mr. Izzo and Walton were not present for the hearing and needed additional input.

S-05-19 Guttstein, Denise: A Condition of the approval was that a copy of the covenants be presented. Mr. Izzo moved to accept those presented, seconded by Mr. Jones with all in favor.

Z-04-44 Gill, John and Mary: Location Lots 52 & 53 Robinson Springs. Condition # 2 asked for the plan of the tree cutting. Mr. Aumand moved to POSTPONE until the next meeting, asking to see a copy of the minutes pertaining to this hearing. Mr. Izzo seconded with all in favor.

5:10 P.M.

Application #          S-05-22
Property Owner(s) Wycoff, Elizabeth & David
Overview:  Proposing to subdivide a 10.17-acre parcel with existing dwelling into two 5-acres lots
Tax Parcel #:    03-066.000
Physical Location:  840 Barnes Hill Road
Zoning District:      RR –5
Present were Dexter LaFavour and David Wycoff. Mr. LaFavour stated the parcel is the last property on Barnes Hill and abuts the Waterbury town line. Parcel has 990’ of road frontage. Existing dwelling will be on 5.2 acres (lot # 1) and lot # 2 is 5.1 acres. New lot has curb cut approval dated 7/28/05. Mr. LaFavour stated the existing 50’ r.o.w. into lot # 1 with the house has an easement through the entire property, but will not be used to gain access to lot # 2. It has to remain in existence because it goes to a house in the rear of the property  (40 acres) owned by Jeff and Karen Nicholson. Ms. Henzel (in the audience) stated there is also a cabin on the property.  Lot 2 has its own disposal area in place and proposing a well. 

The applicant will need an approved curb cut diagram for the new building site; a copy of the easement for a septic system; one for the road going through lot # 1 to neighbors behind; and a. letter from the Stowe Fire Dept. dated 7/28/05 on file stating the subdivision is planned is in compliance with their construction guidelines. Ms. Henzel stated she is concerned as they have deeded spring rights on the Nicholson property behind across Lot # 2. They also have a seasonal stream that feeds their pond. She was worried about the environmental impact this subdivision could have on their property. The spring is shown on the map but the stream is not. Mr. Wycoff described the stream as being small with water in it only after a rain. Mr. Henzel stated he was not sure the spring does not run through Lot # 2. Mr. Wycoff stated from time to time there is water running across lot # 2. The spring, which is the Henzel’s water source, comes from the Nicholson’s property and across lot # 2 (??) Mr. Henzel stated his concern is that an additional sewage system going in could affect the stream which goes to their property (not that far from their house) and also he felt there could be wetlands involved and which are not indicated on the map. Mr. Henzel is concerned about the line from the spring and the potential septic runoff coming from the seasonal stream and going into their pond. The applicant will need the wetlands (if there are any and the location) and stream identified on the plat, building envelope, existing vegetation and clearing limits.  Clarification and consistency on the map of the different lines, i.e. power, septic, where the road goes to the neighbor in the rear and need a copy of the deed stating such, lot size acreage and total acreage need to be changed to bring it up to date, copies of all easements. The standard letter from the Stowe Electric Dept dated 7/21/05 giving one (1) year hookup limitation was entered into the record. The applicant will need an unconditional letter to serve from the Stowe Electric Dept. for the house, but the installation of the infrastructure is permissible, stated Mr. Walton. Mr. Aumand stated he needs to see a revised plan. Mr. Henzel said he is concerned with the run off of the road and the proximity of the building site to Barnes Hill Road. It was suggested Mr. Henzel discuss with Cliff Johnson and it could be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr. LaFavour stated the septic easement might not be done until the deed is done. Mr. Izzo stated it needs to be done and indicated on the plat prior to any approval.  Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to September 20, 2005 for the information requested. Mr. Aumand seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not in attendance. Board has one vacancy. It was agreed when the applicant returns with information, the Board may wish to do a site walk after review of what is presented.

5:40
Application #:         S-05-07-A
Property Owners:  Janeric Products of Vermont, Inc.
Overview:               Amend plant list for reforestation areas
Tax Parcel #:          11—29.010
Physical Location:  Edson Hill Manor
Zoning District:      RR-5 & RHOD

Present were Don Swain and Bill Henchey from Mansfield Landscaping. A revised list of the trees was presented. Will do the best possible to get away from the harsh look of the cut. The house site will have trees 6” or more in diameter left but will remove the evergreens which are scrubs. The removal will be supervised. Proposing to plant the lower area using clumps of trees with the corners filled in. Mr. Izzo asked about diseased tree replacement. Mr. Hinchey said Mr. Lande is adamant about protecting the area and is in agreement with the Board’s concerns. Mr. Hinchey stated the trees he plants are warranted through a growing season. After discussion, members agreed with the strategy of not doing the uniform planting, but  tape 1 side 2 instead doing it in the non-lineal manner. Mr. Aumand moved to accept the landscaping and plant list with the CONDITION that it be viewed by the members in the spring of 2007 for a determination if the planting has been done to the satisfaction of what the Board set out to accomplish. Mr. Izzo seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Walton and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present and there is one vacancy.  

6:00
Application #:          BA 11-255-5
Property Owner(s) Covered Bridge Associates
Overview:                 Review revised clearing limits for building 24
Tax Parcel #:            11-255.000
Physical Location:    Brook Road
Zoning District:        RR5 & RHOD
Present was Paul Reed.  Mr. Walton stated he had visited the building and went to the 2nd story. Mr. Reed stated the approval was given in the summer of 2004 for buildings 13 & 14 in Phase III. Building 14 has been erected. Renewing a request, which came to the Board in January, prior to the building being constructed. 
Seeking to alter the clearing limits to the south and southeast exposure of the building. A portion of the area will be stumped. Mr. Reed commented that the last thing they wish to do is make the project as visible as Trapp’s condos. The views toward Rte 108 will be left with a 20% cut. The proposal is to cut the area, which has no impact on any place in town.  There will be no development allowed below the project because of the deeryard restriction, so no one can come in and make the project more visible, stated Mr. Reed.  3500 s.f. is the area talking about, stated Mr. Reed. Ms. Jary asked the reason for this and Mr. Reed responded they want to improve the view from the building. Mr. Walton agreed there would be no impact doing the trade off. Mr. Aumand moved to APPROVE to accept the clearing plan minor revisions to clearing limits dated 7-26-05, seconded by Mr. Jones with all in favor. CONDITION:
(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

6:15
Application #:           Z-05-131
Property Owners:    Talarico, Frank & Jaqueline
Overview:   Proposing to construct a single family dwelling with garage
Tax Parcel #:           07-164.01 (03)
Physical Location:  Lot 3 Talarico subdivision Taber Hill
Zoning District:      RR-2, RR-5 & RHOD 
Present Darrow Mansfield, Milford Cushman, Architect and Paul Reed. Mr. Walton went to the site. Mr. Mansfield stated the lot is # 3, which is the interior of the site, and plans are to construct a single home, existing barn frame being recycled and used. Measurements are 32’ x 80’ and 20’ high. There is presently a road and driveway to the site and minimal clearing and grading to be done to locate the house. Red cedar siding with copper roof. There is a plateau in the front of the house, a park-like setting, stated Mr. Mansfield.  Mr. Cushman described the site plan with three sections, A B & C for the view shed. Sec. A taken from the Mayo Rd , Percy Hill l and West Hill. looking to the site. Sec. B: view from Percy Hill Road looking through a group of trees    below the canopy of trees and through a grouping of trees to the very end of the building, trees below the house block the house and some 2-2.5’ of the roof may show. Sec. C: from West Hill Road there are trees all along the way with possibly 6’ of the roof may be seen. Mr. Cushman testified the ground would not be seen.  Mr. Cushman showed a sample of the copper roofing to be used, and stated it is treated.  Over period of about 1 year, the glare will be off. Mr. Cushman stated in his opinion the copper roof will not create any liability to the view shed because of the trees and the change in color. Mr. Walton said he felt there would be no view-shed impact from the site. Mr. Aumand suggested it be reviewed as significant. Mr. Mansfield argued the site is insignificant. The Planning Commission determined, when doing the subdivision and under the Ridgeline ordinance this site could be viewed as minor. Testimony has been given and there is very low probability of any impact and asked to be treated as a minor. Mr. Reed testified only 6 trees will be removed and all the blasting material will be going back to the site. The applicant wants to reserve every bit of the natural ledge, stated Mr. Reed.  Mr. Walton said he would testify it is a minor. Mr. Aumand felt sub section 2 & 4 would apply, and he did not feel it a small-scale project. Others felt it a minor based on the testimony given and based on the no cut zone. The basement will be 40% of the floor space. There will be 8 outside lights, 60 watts, 4 lights on the west and 4 on the east side, 2 of which will be under the roof. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, in support of Z-05-131 determining it a minor project with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(2) The standard lighting condition shall be in force.
(3) The Board shall receive an unconditional ability to serve letter from the Stowe Electric Department.
(4) Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Walton, Aumand and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present and there is a vacancy on the Board.

6:40
Application #:       BA 7A-159-2
Property Owner:   49 School Street LLC (Stowe Reporter Building)
Overview:  Installation of four new windows in a historic building.
Tax Parcel #;          7A-159.000
Physical Location:  49 School Street
Zoning District:      VC-10 
Present: Peter Hartt representing owner Biddle Duke. Plan is to add two (2) windows to the rear of the building and two (2) on the side of the Blue Moon restaurant so that a storage room can be used as a production area. The side toward the 1836 house will not change, stated Mr. Hartt and there will be no new entrance. Mr. Hartt stated the windows may be 36” x 60” to match the upper windows-this will determine how many panes and could be 4 over 4.  tape 2 side 1 Mr. Izzo stated the windows should be consistent with the existing windows and Mr.Hartt said they would be. Sec. 4.7 review: most of the criteria not applicable. Letter from Historic Preservation dated 8/11/05 read into the record stating the renovations include the windows with each being 40” wide x 60” tall, six over six divided lights. The Commission unanimously approved.  No change in landscaping. Mr. Hartt stated the staff is never there after 8:00 P.M. any given night so lighting was not an issue. Mr. Hartt stated the difference in the historic Preservation letter and the application re: the size is that it is not definite to the size but Mr. Hartt stated for the record they will n ot be wider than 40”. Mr. Aumand moved to APPROVE with the following CONDITIONS:
   (1)Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.   
(2) The windows will not be wider than 40” and after definite dimensions are decided, the appropriate design should be submitted to Mr. Brink.
Mr. Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present.

6:55 BREAK

7:05
Application #:          7A-101-3
Property Owner(s)  Golden Eagle Associates
Overview:                 Addition of game room and massage room to the existing Spa building.
Tax Parcel #:            7A-101.000
Physical Location:    511 Mountain Road
Zone:                          VC-30

Neil VanDyke present and explained the proposal as an addition to the rear of the fitness center of 1251 s.f. of new space (mostly over the existing deck in the rear), which will allow the moving the game room from the main building and add new massage space. Mr. van Dyke said the footprint would be increasing only slightly. Entrance walkway will change and a new access will be added to act as an emergency access out of the game room. Will have a carriage light on each side of the door. Present coverage is 44,557 + 1251= 45,808 s.f..  No new landscaping planned. Windows, siding, colors to match the existing on the present building. A letter was presented requesting a waiver from the Storm Water Management plan and Site Grading Plan after explanation, saying the small addition will be closing in the existing deck on the level and should present no significant water run-off, the Board agreed to not require the plans. There will be a handicap lift installed. Mr. Van Dyke stated the project is to serve their existing guests. A capacity to serve letter dated 7/26/05 was submitted from Stowe Village Electric Dept., which will require 2kw for the project. Mr. Izzo moved to APPROVE with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand, Jones, Izzo and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present and with a vacancy on the Board.

7:20
Application #:       BA 11-146-3
Property Owners:  Drury, John and Joanne dba Two Dog Lodge
Overview:              Seeking approval to relocate and operate Mt. Mansfield Winter Academy (private school).
Tax Parcel #:          11-146.000
Physical Location:  3576 Mountain Road
Zoning:                   UMR
Present were Mr. & Mrs. Drury, Beth McDermitt, Attorney for Mt. Mansfield Academy,  member of the Board and parent with children going to the school. Also present Lori Furrer, Director. Mr. Drury explained that the school has a contract to purchase the Two Dog Lodge based on approvals and he requested that the Board, if approved, base the effective date on the day of the property transfer. Ms. McDermitt stated the school has been in existence for 12 years but have no plans to further develop the property. Plans are to put up a new sign, remove the chain link fence, and remove the hot tub and pool. No exterior changes to the lodge itself. Plans are to use the garage as a science lab. The school is in operation primarily from November 1 to early April each year. Students go to their home school, i.e. Stowe, Waterbury etc. in the fall and spring. Younger students go to classes in the morning and to the mountain in the afternoon. Older students have a different schedule- about 45 students with approximately one-half the students in the school at one time, 25 staff; some full time but the majority are part time. Approximately 20-day students with the rest being boarding students. There are parents who live in the dorm. Parents will use the main building, which has 18 bedrooms and a 3-bedroom apartment, which is currently the owner’s quarters. In addition to the main building there are 3 chalets on the property. Plans are to use one of the chalets for the older students (seniors) and the other 2 for staff housing. Ms. McDermitt stated they are expanding the programs, starting this summer to include tutoring, language etc. It is the hope to expand the summer and off-season programs, i.e environmental science and physical fitness programs. The traffic pattern will be very similar to that at the Foster Place where the academy is presently located. Parking Plan: there are presently 37 spaces, not marked and it is possible to add 8-10 additional spaces in the area of the fence, which will be removed. Entrance and driveway will not be changed. Mr. Drury stated on site septic and well is approved for a 50-seat restaurant and 58 people, but the Town water and sewer lines run past the Lodge so the option is available to hook up. Ms. McDermott stated they couldn’t get too big, as they will not have the ability to manage the programs. There are no buses but the school has 10 passenger vans to shuttle the students. Sec. 7.3 allows for public and private institutions in the district. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. Have the ability to hook on to town sewer and water. Parking was reviewed and indicated that less will be required. It was agreed that the project is taking traffic from one location on the Mountain Road and relocating to another location. It was stated that the maximum cars at any one time would be 30 (could be 40 in the future, at which time could utilize the additional 8-10 spaces 40). Mr. Drury stated that the current parking plan is approved for a 50 seat restaurant, 58 people etc. There are no plans for any change in the landscaping.
Mr. Izzo felt that if the garage is changed into a science lab, the applicants should come back to the Board with the plans as it is a change of use and will be a change in the building. Ms. Furrer stated the lab would be locked at all times. 
Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law APPROVING BA 11-146-3, which will not become effective until the date of the property transfer occurs (late October) with the following CONDITIONS:
   (1)  Any change in the use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the      Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if amendments shall be required. 
(2) The applicant shall submit a letter from the Fire Department stating they have been made aware of the change in use of the property.
(3) A letter from the Department of Public Safety’s shall be submitted for the file that stating there has been an inspection of the property, which meets all codes.
(4) A parking plan shall be submitted identifying the number of parking spaces. It was stated there is a handicap space at the present time.                    
(5) A copy of the State of Vermont Certification as a school shall be received for the file.
(6) Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Jones and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present.

 7:45
Application #:         BA 14-002-26T
Applicant(s)            Spruce Peak Realty
Overview:               Installation of three (3) temporary steel structure to support existing skier services during construction of the new Spruce Base Lodge
Tax Parcel #:          14-002.000
Physical Location: Spruce Peak Base Area
Zoning District:     Ski PUD, RR-5

 Present was Bob Cook representing the applicant who stated the location of the hotel has been shuffled around and the Spruce Base Lodge construction (scheduled to start in April or May of this year) has not yet started so part (approximately 25%) of the existing Spruce Base Lodge will need to remain, requiring the three structures. Before the occupancy of the new Base Lodge, the 3 temporary structures and the remains of the old Base Lodge will be removed, stated Mr. Cook. Two of the new structures will be 42’ x 80’ and one 51’ x 88’. Mr. Cook stated there has been a shift in the location 
of the structures, i.e.building A will be appended to the Adventure Center. There will be a concrete 3’ frost wall with insulation, building B& C will have asphalt or concrete floor Temporary A will be will be slightly raised to the same elevation of the Adventure Center. Mr. Aumand: “the only thing that makes these temporary is the fact they are coming out at some point.” Mr. Cook said yes, there is a sequence; we know the Base Lodge will be ready in 11-07 at which time buildings B & C will be removed. Building A stays until such time as building A-1, to the east, gets built to accommodate the current activities of the Adventure Center, stated Mr. Cook. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Walton asked members the feelings on the temporary structure. Mr. Izzo asked Mr. Cook what is temporary and he said, timing is building A is this fall and B & C next summer. Mr. Jones said he felt a temporary structure (Sec. 4.2) is with the sole intent is to facilitate the construction of something else, whereas these are permanent structures with a short life. These have foundations and felt they are permanent buildings having a short life. Mr. Jones felt temporary structures would not require a full review, but he felt these do. A discussion took place re: what is a temporary structure with each member giving his or her interpretation.    Mr. Izzo stated we do not want to give an approval which would allow the structures to be moved where and when the applicant wishes. Mr. Walton agreed with Mr. Jones’ theory, as did other members.  Building A to house: cafeteria, brown bag type food, snowboard shop, restrooms and small ski storage area. Building B: dining area; C: dining and kitchen. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, APPROVING as permanent structures with a short life expectancy and which cannot be moved without prior approval with the following CONDITIONS:  
(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required 
(2) A parking plan shall be submitted showing what exists in the area of the location of the new structures and what will exist after their installation. 
(3) The life span for each building will be 2 years from the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
(4) A letter shall be received for the file from Public Safety stating they have reviewed each building. 
(5) A letter shall be received for the file, from the Fire Department stating they have reviewed the proposal and location of each building.
Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Aumand and Jones in favor. Mr. Coppock not present for the hearing.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.

 Respectfully submitted,
 Barbara S. Allaire